Disposed

Malti Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC7 Oct 2020CRLP/9902/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR involving allegations of forgery of educational documents and prayers for non-arrest. The court refused to quash the FIR but directed non-arrest pending the police report.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of FIR refused; petitioner directed not to be arrested pending submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.

Malti Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 45

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 9902 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Malti Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rohit Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J. Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Rohit Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the State.

¶6

This writ petition has been filed seeking quashing of the FIR dated 2.07.2020 registered as Case Crime no. 0057 of 2020 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, P.S. Jamalpur, District Mirzapur with a further prayer not to arrest the petitioner in pursuance of the said FIR.

¶7

The present FIR has been lodged by the respondent no.4 alleging that the petitioner who was appointed as Assistant Teacher in Primary School on 16.12.2010, his B.Ed degree issued from Dr. Bheem Rao Ambedkar University, Agra is forged.

¶8

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned first information report has been lodged by complainant containing absolutely false and concocted allegations against the petitioner with the ulterior intention of harassing the petitioner. Reliance has been placed upon the order dated 13.9.2019 passed in Writ A no. 13785 of 2019 in which indulgence has been granted in favour of similarly placed co-accused; matter requires deeper and fairer investigation before any arrest should be given effect to and the petitioner will participate and co-operate with the investigation; apart from the bald allegations made in the impugned F. I. R., no evidence is forthcoming even prima facie indicating at the complicity of the petitioner in the commission of alleged offence and hence the impugned F. I. R. is liable to be quashed.

¶9

Per contra learned A.G.A. contended that the allegations made in the first information report cannot be aborted at this stage. The petitioner will have sufficient opportunity to rebut the allegations.

¶10

From perusal of the F.I.R., prima facie cognizable offences is

¶11

made out at this stage against the petitioner, therefore, we do not find any cogent reason to quash the first information report. The prayer for quashing the first information report is refused.

¶12

However, in the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner, it is directed that the petitioner shall not be arrested in the aforesaid case till the submission of police report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C., subject to the restraint that she shall co-operate with the investigation and shall appear as and when called upon to assist in the investigation.

¶13

With the above direction, this petition is finally disposed of.

¶14

Order Date :- 7.10.2020 RavindraKSingh

Malti Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Malti Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anuj Kumar Singh and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Anuj Jain and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ajaz Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Priyanka Chaurasiya and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Hari Shyam Upadhyay Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shan Afatb and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others